There are many progressive and so-called “moderate” politicians like Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that always claim that they are “pro-choice.’ However, when you look at their records and what they support, you will see that they are only “pro-choice” when it comes to the issue of abortion and nothing more. They are not “pro-choice” when it involves the right of an individual to own and purchase a firearm; they are not “pro-choice” when it comes to the right of parents to decide whether to send their children to private or parochial schools; they are not “pro-choice” when it comes to the right of an individual to smoke in public or private places; and they are not “pro-choice” when it comes to the right of individual to not join a Labor Union or opt out of government programs like Social Security.
When people talk about blindness, it is usually meant with regards to an individual losing one’s own eyesight; however, truthfully, there are other ways that an individual could become blinded. A man or woman could be blinded due to one’s own ego and pride. A man or woman could be blinded by living in denial and being oblivious to it all. A man or woman could be blinded by a cause or an endeavor. Finally, there are the men and women that become blind due to ideology.
To me, this can be all too dangerous.
Whenever there is an argument about cutting spending and cutting the deficit, often times there will be those voices that will claim that the supporters are hurting a segment of the population, hurting children, hurting workers, etc, or engage in the fine art of denial. Recently, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) claimed that by cutting spending for things like public television, supporters wanted to hurt Elmo and Big Bird. In Wisconsin, there are protesters that are saying that by cutting spending deeply, it is tantamount to Nazism. Some people, like propagandist filmmaker Michael Moore, are even claiming that there is no budget crisis and that states and the federal government have tons of money available. All in all, when you hear the opponents of debt reduction and spending restraints talk, it is not only comical but tragic as well. It is as if they are alcoholics and drug addicts who do not want to admit that they have a problem.
States like New Jersey, Wisconsin, Florida, New York and others are facing big budget and state deficits; the federal government’s national debt is at $14 trillion and counting. Painful choices will have to be made and the days where we lived in blindness are very much over. This nation has to face reality, and while reality is not pretty, it is better than living in denial.
For over 40 years, every presidential administration has promised that by a certain date, the U.S. would be energy sufficient and would very much lower its dependence upon foreign oil. The administrations of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and now Barack Obama have all stated by a certain date and time in the future, the U.S. would be independent when it came to energy. All these statements and all these promises have turned out to be untrue.
There are many individuals that have this belief that politicians are a “smart lot.” That they know the law and what is just and unjust according to it. Over a period of five months now, I have heard, read and watched interviews and speeches that have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that when it comes to law, particularly U.S. Constitutional Law, politicians are ignorant. It does not matter if these politicians reside in local or state government, nor does it matter if they are at the federal level. The fact that these people have this belief that there are no limits to their power and that they can do anything to force their will upon people and individuals is not only frightening but also disgusting.
In every human life, there are times when one must make tough and painful choices in order to move forward. These choices may come in matters concerning one’s health and welfare, one’s emotional and psychological well being, with regards to one’s family or regarding one’s financial, moral or economic well being. These choices are very difficult and are very tough to make. Nevertheless, these choices are made everyday to secure a better tomorrow and are done bravely with great consultation. When it comes to politicians, however, it is a very different story. Often times, politicians would like to take the easy way out or make no decision whatsoever in terms of issues, policy and when it comes to deficits and spending. These are people who not only want to have their cake and eat it too, but also want to keep what they have in terms of access, money, prestige and power, not to mention control of the purse strings.
In 2003, President George W. Bush stated the following: “When somebody hurts, government has got to move.” It was President Bush that believed that every solution required government intervention. He was not alone. This has been the belief of a majority of Americans since the 1900s. Americans since that time have believed that government was the instrument that could provide for all, that could make people moral and virtuous and can right any wrong in human activity and human life. After examining the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, after looking at our national debt, our unfunded liabilities and the intrusions by government in all aspects of human life, the report card is in: this belief and philosophy is bankrupt.
Whenever I hear critics of a non-interventionist foreign policy speak, they always attack those who hold this view as “isolationists.” They claim that non-interventionists want to isolate themselves from the globe, that they want to create a bubble between them and the outside world, not engaging in any interaction with the foreign world. That characterization is false and very-very-dishonest.
A non-interventionist foreign policy is the belief in “peace, commerce, honest friendship will all nations,” and “entangling alliances with none,” to use the bold words of Thomas Jefferson. It is the belief that all nations have the right to engage of freedom of trade and freedom of exchange, that all nations should be friendly to one another, but that no nation should involve itself in the quarrels of other nations or in another nation’s political and social disputes. This was the foreign policy position of the U.S. for 100 years. It was rejected in 1898 when President William McKinley and Congress decided to go to war with the nation of Spain over Cuba. Since then, the U.S. has been following an interventionist path and has caused the U.S. to become the world’s busybody, not to mention the world’s policeman. This interventionist policy has also caused the U.S to get entangled in alliances with dictators and despots not only in places like the Middle East but elsewhere. It has caused populations in other nations to hate the U.S. because of these alliances.